Judge orders ex-supervisor to testify on role in strip club relationship

Friday

Jun 7, 2013 at 9:30 AMJun 7, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Former Middle Smithfield Township Supervisor Bob Spano Sr. and strip club developer Daniel Russo must give sworn testimony and be cross-examined about their business relationship in seeking a nude female dance club on Spano's property, Monroe County Judge Arthur Zulick ruled May 31.

David Pierce

Former Middle Smithfield Township Supervisor Bob Spano Sr. and strip club developer Daniel Russo must give sworn testimony and be cross-examined about their business relationship in seeking a nude female dance club on Spano's property, Monroe County Judge Arthur Zulick ruled May 31.

Zulick ruled in favor of a joint motion by a group of residents who are appealing a 2011 township supervisors' decision to allow the strip club.

The township itself, which now has a different supervisors' board, has joined in the appeal.

It is unusual for a court in an appeal to allow new testimony — in addition to the record in the original land use decision.

But township attorney Michael Gaul and residents' attorney Don Miles argued that Spano failed to honor a subpoena to testify in the original land use hearing.

Spano owes Russo money for back property tax payments Russo made on the Werry's Motel property where the strip club is proposed, Gaul said.

Spano testified before a township-appointed hearing officer in favor of the club, ignored a subpoena to be cross-examined, then provided the decisive vote to approve the club after majority supervisors disagreed with the hearing officer's ruling.

Spano previously agreed to allow the hearing officer, Donald Karpowich, to make the final decision, Gaul said. But Spano and former Supervisor Scott Schaller disagreed with the ruling against the club, so they decided to overrule Karpowich.

Spano appears to be the sole shareholder of Harima Inc., which owns the Werry's property, Gaul said. A new corporation called HOTTPA made the township application to open the club, yet no information has been provided as to who owns it, he added.

The applicants have never produced a sales agreement for the strip club property, Gaul said.

"These are things we need to find out," Gaul said.

Taped depositions by Spano, Russo and other parties could be limited to the HOTTPA application, Gaul said.

Spano was criminally charged with violating the state Ethics Act by voting for the strip club despite a conflict of interest. Spano said state law allowed him to cast the vote to break a deadlock on the three-member board, if he acknowledged the conflict before voting.

That charge was eventually dropped in return for a Spano guilty plea on another charge related to his required annual filing of financial interests.

HOTTPA attorney Joseph Wiesmeth said Russo and HOTTPA, not Spano, made the strip club application.

"Everybody who was subpoenaed was there and did testify" and now the residents "want a new bite at the apple" by introducing additional evidence, Wiesmeth said.

"We shouldn't be bound by what he did," Wiesmeth said of Spano. "If he did something wrong, why should my client, a disinterested third party" suffer as a result?

The only reason there is no record of the Russo-Spano finances is because Spano refused to be cross-examined, Gaul replied. Spano's last-minute decision to vote on the final approval introduced an additional conflict of interest, he said.

Zulick ruled in favor of the motion, saying additional information before the county court hearing would make it easier for him to weigh the facts and produce factual findings in his eventual decision.